Presidential denials without proof
By Levi Obijiofor

THE attempt earlier this week by the Presidency to deny and dismiss a newspaper report which suggested that President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa declined to support President Olusegun Obasanjo's reported consideration of a third term in office was not unexpected. At a time when Obasanjo's image is on a high following the public exposure and embarrassment of National Assembly leaders and two Federal ministers for alleged involvement in corrupt practices, presidential spokespersons are determined not to allow any adverse media report to dent Obasanjo's image. Unfortunately, the denial by presidential assistant Femi Fani-Kayode raised more queries than it attempted to answer.

The mere denial that a consultation or dialogue never took place between Obasanjo and Mbeki did not invalidate the report published in The Guardian on Sunday this week. Presidential assistants often operate in a culture in which it is preferable to deny every adverse media report, even if the report turns out to be accurate and a true reflection of the event.

Such a strategy is not in the true spirit of public relations practice. Sometimes it is better to keep quiet or to admit an accurate report if you have no substantial evidence to discredit a newspaper report. If however presidential assistants must defend their boss, they must provide believable evidence or robust justification why that event occurred or why the government acted the way it did. In this particular case, Fani-Kayode provided no evidence other than to say that Obasanjo told him there was no such consultation. It is a matter of credibility and believability.

It is not a question of whether or not Obasanjo had a dialogue with Mbeki over Obasanjo's push for a third term. The correct question really should be: did Obasanjo ever harbour or entertain such thoughts and suggestions. Obasanjo owes the nation an obligation to come clear on this issue and save the nation another endless round of needless debate. Prior to the 2003 presidential election, Obasanjo literally kept the nation standing over whether or not he would re-contest. Week after week, in his public and private functions, Obasanjo told everyone to be patient because he was awaiting instructions from his creator.

He said he was waiting for divine intervention and that his decision would be made once the angels of God tapped him on the shoulder and directed him on the best course of action. It was like waiting at the Vatican for the white smoke that heralds the election of a new Pope. Problem is that waiting could drag on for ages. Take this for an example. On one occasion when Cardinals gathered to elect a new Pope and were undecided after voting for more than two years, the residents of the Italian city became upset and took matters into their hands. They removed the roof of the building where the Cardinals were huddled in prayer waiting for the intervention of the Holy Spirit. The distraught residents who pulled off the roof of the house argued quite understandably that they removed the roof so the Holy Spirit would have easier access to the undecided Cardinals.

In the case of Obasanjo's delay tactic, reading his mind became a national pastime. Parapsychologists peeped into their crystal balls but the images that appeared on their spherical balls did not help to ease the feelings of restlessness and unease. With time, experience and reality unmasked Obasanjo's game plan. As time dragged and Obasanjo dithered, everyone realised the futility of waiting for a man who held the nation by the scruff. Obasanjo's method proved ingenious, if not misleading. Angels do not exist on earth, and if they did exist, they certainly won't appear in Nigeria and soil their hands in the muddled political environment.

Even if Obasanjo contemplated fiddling with the Constitution in order to achieve his pet dream, he would have a very difficult task convincing an apprehensive nation. Nigerians are now a lot wiser than they were two years ago. The mood of the nation pre-2003 elections is not the same and cannot be the same as the mood of the nation pre-2007. A lot of things have changed. Obasanjo would have to explain with justifications why he wants to run for a third term. What is it that he forgot to accomplish in eight years of democratic rule that he could achieve in just four years?

Even more fundamental, what is it that Obasanjo failed to accomplish as a military dictator when he had all the powers thrust on him between 1975 and 1979 that he now wants to accomplish in four years? The problem with ambition is that once it starts, it is harder to control. From the realm of surrealism, dreams mature and take on the elemental force of unquenchable fire of ambition. Dreams change the mindset of men and women and catapult their ambitions into the world of make-believe. The good thing about dreams and ambition is that they are not considered as crime in human society. Everyone is free to dream.

Obasanjo's reform agenda, completed or uncompleted, should not serve as a cotton wool to be used in blindfolding the nation. Political leaders who fail to accomplish their programs within their term(s) of office are required to hand over to their successors. That's the implied meaning of transition. Political transition does not tolerate sit-tight political leaders who overstay their terms of office. It is reassuring to hear presidential spokesperson Fani-Kayode say earlier this week that, "The President has declared that the transition will not be complete until he hands over power to a successor in 2007. That remains our position." Let's hope Obasanjo and his presidential wards would keep to their words. Nevertheless, there are reasons to doubt assurances from the Presidency. When Obasanjo revealed to his audience in Berlin, Germany, during a visit in mid March, that he was under pressure to go for a third term, he created a massive hole full of suspicions.

Obasanjo did not identify the people whom he said were nudging him to run for a third term. He did not say when those pressures first started. Obasanjo also did not clarify categorically his position on the matter. Against the background of these precedents, it is not improper for Nigerians to treat with contempt denials of Obasanjo's political ambition in relation to a third term in office. Ambition is like a horse. Obasanjo must not allow his courtiers to push him on top of the horse and he must not allow them to ride the horse for him. If that happens, the horse, the rider and the ground supporters are destined to end in one dungeon.

Another reason to dismiss denials emanating from the Presidency is that once politicians and their servants begin to invoke the name of God in a matter that requires personal decision and action, there must be reason to be apprehensive. Here is Fani-Kayode again: "We want to note that whatever happens in 2007 will be determined by the will of God and the votes of the Nigerian people and certainly not by leading members of the international community."

History is replete with instances in which ambition drove men and women to use the name of God in vain, to undermine the confidence of their fellow citizens and to flout the rule of law. Until the Presidency can provide some kind of unimpeachable evidence, the report published in The Guardian on Sunday this week should be treated as authentic and true.